So.... everything must have a cause. But... of all the natural things, most of which we know the natural causes of, some we don't., it MUST be an inteligent cause which created one of the causes we don't know about?

Wait, what now?

A volcano's cause is completely beyond the capability/ability of man.Yet we know these causes and that they are natural.

Stellar formation is totally beyond the ability of man and yet, again, we know the natural causes.

As for Zeus and Odin? People still go and visit the ruins of temples to said dieties. That their practices have been lost shows that we know they were activly worshipped.

Just you saying said dieties are false holds no merrit.

So, again, you need a better reason/example/hypothesis for your diety.

(11-01-2017 05:43 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote: If something comes into existence, then there must be something else able to bring it into existence (obviously). Nothing comes from nothing.

Why should this "first cause" not be a natural phenomenon? Because a "natural phenomenon" is not capable of creating anything, let alone our infinitely finely-tuned complex universe. What 'natural phenomenon" do you know of that would be capable of creating our universe?

It is beyond absurd to claim that anything, let alone the entire universe, does not require a cause.

(11-01-2017 05:43 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote: Why would I expect the universe to have a cause?

More accurately, you should ask how the universe could possibly have a cause. Kindly show how causation is possible without space or time.

Quote:If something comes into existence, then there must be something else able to bring it into existence (obviously). Nothing comes from nothing.

You keep saying obviously as if this would make it true. It does not. "Prior" to the universe space and time do not exist, reality as we know it does not exist and something could quite easily come from nothing. The "obvious" rules that apply here and now simply don't work under those circumstances.

Quote:Why should this "first cause" not be a natural phenomenon? Because a "natural phenomenon" is not capable of creating anything

Your answer boils down to "I don't believe it could have happened that way." Show evidence that it couldn't.

Kindly have a look at emergent behaviours for some beautiful examples of natural phenomena producing incredibly complex results with 0% supernatural intervention.

Quote:let alone our infinitely finely-tuned complex universe.

Your "fine-tuned" universe consists largely of empty vacuum, stellar plasma, black holes, dark matter and dark energy. Given its effects on human physiology you must conclude that it is purpose designed as a vast human-killing machine (a bit over-engineered if you ask me) and that it's Creator is a sociopath bent on your destruction.

Quote:What 'natural phenomenon" do you know of that would be capable of creating our universe?

None. I'm not a cosmologist. I should cram God AllMighty into every gap in my understanding?

Quote:Zeus, Odin and Cthulu are false gods. There is no evidence that they exist.

Ditto for the Abrahamic religions. You have provided zero evidence thus far.

Quote:Trying to reason that the true God doesn't exist because there are false gods is a nonsensical argument.

You forgot to capitalize the "T" in True God. And the "S" in Scotsman. Why is your god any less fictitious than any of these others?

Quote:My position is that everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause, that the universe has a beginning of its existence, and that the universe therefore has a cause of its existence.

If it doesn't have a beginning then how can it have an existence?

Quote:It is beyond absurd to claim that anything, let alone the entire universe, does not require a cause.

No, it's absurd to suggest that you can have causation without space, time or reality as we understand it. It's absurd to say that something is "obvious" when the only thing that is obvious is that none of the "common sense" rules should be applied because the situation isn't common and won't make sense.

But as I've said a few times now, these are all arguments, not evidence. The First Cause has been failing to persuade atheists since Aristotle's Unmoved Mover was penned ~2340 years ago. As I said pages ago, this has been done to death.

Time for you to present that evidence you claim exists.

---

Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.

What do you think? Is a house a house after it's built or while the trees are still growing? Is a tree a tree after it's grown or while the water runs through the roots of its parent tree before it's even a seed?

Everything that has a 'cause' has come from something else in a recycled form. It can all be traced back to the Big Bang. The universe itself may well be the same way in that it gets recycled, not caused. Who knows, before the Big Bang, another universe may have gone through a Big Crunch. Perhaps the universe has always been around and that's just the way it's been.

We do not know. I find it presumptuous to assume the universe (or anything really) had a cause/beginning when we have no idea.

Even more presumptuous to assume that due to its complexity it requires an even more complex creator. What created god? It's turtles all the way down with that thinking.

Unless you think your god is exempt. Which leads to the question, why? And, why can't the universe be exempt?

(11-01-2017 04:47 PM)Ace Wrote: if god is the first cause then what caused the first cause ?
if your answer is god doesn't need a cause to come into existence out of nothing then why should anything else need a cause ?

spirit and heaven have no evidence to support their existence

but lets ignore all that and assume god exists and created everything...... this is all fine and dandy except for the big annoying inconvenient question of "WHY?"
whats the whole point of creating us and the universe ?

humans occupy a tiny spec of dirt in an remote unnoticeable corner in this inhospitable vast universe so its obviously not created with us in mind
also why create humans ? what purpose do we serve in all this ?

By definition, the FIRST CAUSE does not have a cause.

Why should anything else need a cause ? Because anything else other than the First Cause has a beginning. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

"spirit and heaven have no evidence to support their existence"

That ties in well with my original question. What do you consider to be "evidence"?

"WHY?" whats the whole point of creating us and the universe ?"

In my theistic view, God gave us the gift of life because of his love for us. The "point" is for us to enjoy life in happiness.

Yes, the universe is a very big place - God intends for righteous humans to live forever.

The problem is, we were given this planet to live on but have made a terrible mess of it. The planet is being ruined, violence and immoral behavior are rampant, society is more depraved than ever. We are living in what the Bible describes as "critical times". I believe that God will soon step in and sort out these issues and restore the earth. Then, in the future, when the earth is restored and pseudoscientific theories such as Evolution have been wiped out, we can move forward and start working on the technology necessary to explore our vast universe.

The energy of the universe exists.
That energy takes many forms. Galaxies, stars, black holes and countless more.
Going back in time, you'll hard pressed to find any evidence of that energy suddenly GONE.

So what conclusions can we arrive at ?

Change is the only constant

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

What an egotistical idea that some god built a universe just for us.
Creationism is such a presumptuous pile of baseless hope that "something" is watching out for you. That if you hope for it to be true it will be true.
At best, and most likely, life on this planet started by accident and we are a lucky mutation of some great apes of the distant past.

(11-01-2017 07:06 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote: By definition, the FIRST CAUSE does not have a cause.

Special Pleading. Unlike every other cause, the First Cause must be uncaused otherwise the arguent makes no sense.

Quote:Because anything else other than the First Cause has a beginning. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

More Special Pleading. Unlike everything else we observe, please let the First Cause have no beginning.

Please, please break all the rules so we can have this one logical absurdity: A cause without space or time.

So now that we're done breaking as many rules as possible to allow this ridulous and unnecesssary First Cause, please tell me how it's evidence.

---

Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.